It's way too early in the fucking morning to need a drink.

[kellinator]

Thanks to karnythia, I now know that Bill O'Reilly and Fox News repeatedly mislabeled Mark Foley a Democrat. Can't we file a class-action lawsuit to make them accurately label themselves Fox Propaganda?

Comments

[paradisacorbasi.livejournal.com]

I'm behind that.

[dwivian]

AIIIGH!

I don't get all anti-PBS when something weird happens on MacNeil/Lehrer. Neither should one get all in Fox-News face because their biased commentary program screwed up (intentional or accidental, I can't say, but it's getting the right press).

This is wholly O'Reilly's fault, and his people's issue. Fox-News, their news reporting, is really good. They just put really stupid commentors on to fill the gaps while their field reporters drive to some new "live onsite location". ::sigh::

Funny thing, though. Foley is a RINO -- he's pro-choice, and pro-social program. He couldn't get elected as a Democrat, so he switched parties to further his political aspirations. Proof that far too many people vote straight-ticket without thinking about who their candidate is, or what they'll do once in Washington (for your district, or in email, I suppose....)

[kellinator.livejournal.com]

Seriously, would you argue with a fencepole?

[dwivian]

Depends. Is it wrong? :)

I'm perfectly happy to see O'Reilly skewered, but people are not mentioning him. They're all over Fox News instead, because of their slogan. If Larry King says something odd, it's Larry King, not CNN, and people make the distinction. Why then don't they do the same for Fox? Isn't bias of any type the problem? Or, just unpopular bias?

[elizabethf.livejournal.com]

Thank you. This is exactly what I was going to point out.

[dwivian]

look out for the fencepost.

[kellinator.livejournal.com]

Why do you persist in baiting me? Have you not yet noticed that it doesn't work?

[dwivian]

What makes you think I'm baiting you? You might want to look at that closely -- I was, honestly, pointing out that you were tarring the Fox News newsreporting teams because the broadcast company wants to drive ratings by having an idiot do a show. Do you not see that these are two different groups?

Now, if you can show me why you feel it is fair game to blame both, I might change my opinion. I don't expect to, but I am always open to it.

[kellinator.livejournal.com]

*points you to what real journalist reannon says*

*ignores you, because you've used this game too many times before. Acting like an ass on the intarwub is so 2003. Why don't you take up knitting?*

[kellinator.livejournal.com]

You're both being disingenuous. Fox News has been happy for years to closely identify themselves with Bill O'Reilly and his silly No-Spin Zone. To suddenly claim that the two are unrelated is... pretty much what the Republicans are attempting to do with Foley right now.

[dwivian]

So you directly connect CNN and Larry King? They've done the same thing, after all.... And, yet, people are smart enough to see that Larry's positions are HIS, and not necessarily those of CNN. Why conflate FNN and O'Reilly?

They are related by business practice, and the decision to drive revenue by getting eyeballs onto their network. I'll grant that. But, I am not being disingenuous at all when I say that the Fox News news-team (source of "Fair and Balanced Reporting") has nothing to do with the commentary and pundit shows.

[kellinator.livejournal.com]

You know, I'm really sick of you using my journal to show off how clever you are. Go show off your verbal skills somewhere else, because I'm not impressed.

[kellinator.livejournal.com]

I never said a damn word about CNN or Larry King. Stop putting words in my mouth.

[dwivian]

Not putting words in your mouth -- I'm asking if those words would COME from you. It's an analogy, and it helps me understand your position better if you find it a useful one, or one in error.

[elizabethf.livejournal.com]

Conspiracy theories. I suppose the Republicans and Fox News were also behind the fact that the original source of your posted content, bradblog.com also made their very own typo when they listed the date of the screen shot as 6/03/06 originally.

This is ridiculous. He's a bad man that did a very bad thing and he should be punished for it, regardless of either his party affiliation OR his real stances on issues. Mark Foley's actions are no fault of anyone else (that includes the Republican Party) but Mark Foley.

[kellinator.livejournal.com]

Sorry, but I cannot abide reading your politics on a regular basis, and I've had quite enough of your political attacks in my journal, when I avoid making them in yours. I'm sure I'll see you around Atlanta.

[reannon.livejournal.com]

As a journalist, sorry, this is a firing offense. But Fox just shrugs its shoulders and says it doesn't care. O'Reilly is not separate from Fox - ultimately the newspaper or the network bears the responsibility for ethical behavior and verification of truth. The instant it went up the first time someone should have yanked it down to fix it. For it to appear three separate times is not negligence. It is deliberate.

[dwivian]

Who at O'Reilly would you fire? The graphics team? The programming editor? Or is there someone in there that is supposed to do fact-checking and verification of the graphics?

I really don't know the process for getting graphics up on a commentary show (for live TV it goes quickly and we expect mistakes like the CNN "Shuttle going 10x the speed of light" mistake, but I would hope that for something like O'Reilly they'd take more time to get it right, and that it'd have some kind of oversight). Since these shows tend to be 'in the can' before going on, how would you suggest that it be yanked down when noticed? Is there a way to insert improved or repaired graphics on the fly? That'd be far too cool!

[dwivian]

kellinator has asked that I not continue this line of questions on her journal. I respect that, so I've opened up a post for replies. I really am interested in your answer and your take on how Fox might have responded, and how fact checking is done on canned shows. I'm really out of my element there, and I'd appreciate anything you could share. Thanks!

[ellimayhem.livejournal.com]

kellinator has asked that I not continue this line of questions on her journal. I respect that,

Wow, and it only took you 15 lengthy comments to figure that out and decide to "respect" it.

Any reply on your part will be deleted unread and not responded to. This "conversation" is over.

[scarcrest.livejournal.com]

... Anything I could say here would land me in Gitmo, I'm afraid.

[heathrow.livejournal.com]

GAH.

[teague.livejournal.com]

I know you ment the comment as dark humor, not an excuse to get all serious and debate-y. I heard about this crap last night from my friend, neintales My comment, which she quoted, was this:

-Teague- Yeah, ok Fox, what ever...douches
-Teague- I'm sorry...Douches might be useful to women...;)

If you haven't had a chance, you should dance on over to my latest post. I have a strong feeling it will amuse you.

[chicating.livejournal.com]

Simon was wrong...*Fox* makes you stupid.
Dag.
Yeah, I'm thinking somebody should lose his job. But the person that thought it up, won't, probably. Some peon will get the Hastert treatment.

[raistlinbrown.livejournal.com]

Wow. So busted, Fox News.